1
|
Mori K, Mostafaei H, Sari Motlagh R, Pradere B, Quhal F, Laukhtina E, Schuettfort VM, Kramer G, Abufaraj M, Karakiewicz PI, Kimura T, Egawa S, Shariat SF. Systemic therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: network meta-analysis. BJU Int 2021; 129:423-433. [PMID: 34171173 PMCID: PMC9291853 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15507] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Objectives To perform a systematic review and network meta‐analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for the management of metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), as there has been a paradigm shift with the use of next‐generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) and docetaxel. Methods Multiple databases were searched for articles published before May 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis extension statement for network meta‐analysis. Studies comparing overall/progression‐free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with mHSPC were eligible. Results Nine studies (N = 9960) were selected, and formal network meta‐analyses were conducted. Abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76–0.90), docetaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.82–0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.73–0.99) were associated with significantly better OS than androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and abiraterone emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.71, 95% CrI 0.67–0.76), apalutamide (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.65–0.81), docetaxel (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.78–0.90), and enzalutamide (HR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.63–0.71) were associated with significantly better PFS than ADT, and enzalutamide emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.78–0.93), apalutamide (HR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.77–0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.73–0.88) were significantly more effective than docetaxel. Regarding AEs, apalutamide was the likely best option among the three ARIs. In patients with low‐volume mHSPC, enzalutamide was the best option in terms of OS and PFS. Conclusions All three ARIs are effective therapies for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. All three seemed more effective than docetaxel. These findings may facilitate individualised treatment strategies and inform future comparative trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keiichiro Mori
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hadi Mostafaei
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
| | - Reza Sari Motlagh
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Benjamin Pradere
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Fahad Quhal
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Ekaterina Laukhtina
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Victor M Schuettfort
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Gero Kramer
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mohammad Abufaraj
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada
| | - Takahiro Kimura
- Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shin Egawa
- Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.,Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.,Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.,Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria.,Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.,European Association of Urology Research Foundation, Arnhem, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|